Hermits!

Hee hee! This is some of the funniest self-ownage I've ever seen. Is this guy for real?

Edit: Clock speeds haven't been the end-all since the Pentium 4 VS. Athlon XP era.

first off Crysis needs a P4 3 GHZ Thats weaker then the weakest core 2 duo. Second, Core 2 duo, has just that 2 cores. Third, Clock speeds dont matter, efficiency does. AMDs have a much lower Clock speed then Intel CPU's yet they perform equally.cobrax25

I have a question for you guys. You all act like the Intel Core 2 Duo's are gods, however, the GHz on these things are low. Like 2.13 low. When Crysis needs over 3 GHz, unless you're able to overclock, is there no hope?
evilbarbarian

I have a question for you guys. You all act like the Intel Core 2 Duo's are gods, however, the GHz on these things are low. Like 2.13 low. When Crysis needs over 3 GHz, unless you're able to overclock, is there no hope?
evilbarbarian

why is this in system war. it's a questionMerovingin33

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]first off Crysis needs a P4 3 GHZ Thats weaker then the weakest core 2 duo. Second, Core 2 duo, has just that 2 cores. Third, Clock speeds dont matter, efficiency does. AMDs have a much lower Clock speed then Intel CPU's yet they perform equally.smokeydabear076

why is this in system war. it's a questionMerovingin33

[QUOTE="Merovingin33"]why is this in system war. it's a question-KinGz-

holy moley!

*head explodes* 

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="cobrax25"]first off Crysis needs a P4 3 GHZ Thats weaker then the weakest core 2 duo. Second, Core 2 duo, has just that 2 cores. Third, Clock speeds dont matter, efficiency does. AMDs have a much lower Clock speed then Intel CPU's yet they perform equally.cobrax25

[QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="cobrax25"]first off Crysis needs a P4 3 GHZ Thats weaker then the weakest core 2 duo. Second, Core 2 duo, has just that 2 cores. Third, Clock speeds dont matter, efficiency does. AMDs have a much lower Clock speed then Intel CPU's yet they perform equally.smokeydabear076

I honestly wasn't making this thread is a derogatory way. I want to get into PC gaming big time, but I don't have much knowledge on the subject. So anyway, a 6400 or 6600 would suffice, without overclocking?
evilbarbarian

So by your logic a Celeron 2GHZ is faster than an AMD XP 1.8GHZ because the Celeron has a bigger number? Thread of the year.16bitkevin

Many, many people every day full for this, bigger number must equal better...its very easy to make money out of people for not knowing.

Its partly the manufactors fault imo, there naming system does nothing to help the average consumer...8800GTS, GTS, x1900XTX, XT, Pro, X2, 4400, 520, 660 etc etc

I honestly wasn't making this thread is a derogatory way. I want to get into PC gaming big time, but I don't have much knowledge on the subject. So anyway, a 6400 or 6600 would suffice, without overclocking?
evilbarbarian

I have a question for you guys. You all act like the Intel Core 2 Duo's are gods, however, the GHz on these things are low. Like 2.13 low. When Crysis needs over 3 GHz, unless you're able to overclock, is there no hope?
evilbarbarian

You obviously know nothing about hardware. GHZ is one of the least important things when buying a CPU. You just owned yourself bud. 

Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. coolguy1111

I honestly wasn't making this thread is a derogatory way. I want to get into PC gaming big time, but I don't have much knowledge on the subject. So anyway, a 6400 or 6600 would suffice, without overclocking?
evilbarbarian

In that case, I sincerely apologize for my remarks and wish you a good day. And yes, an E6600 would do wonderfully. Good gaming!

I have been self-owned by my own contentiousness, paranoia, and stupidity.

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. smokeydabear076

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. coolguy1111

Is AMD even coming out with new CPU's to compete with the cheap C2D's like the E6300 and E6400?  

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. coolguy1111

A C2D @3.0ghz is faster than a pentium 4 @7.0ghz

My bad for sounding hostile, it wasn't my intention. I kind of had to make it sound like an arguement though, seeing as it's in SW, and I didn't want it to get locked. I would have put it in the hardware section, but I rarely get replies in there. :(
evilbarbarian

Right way to do it next time:

Educate > Educate more > Post topic > Don't look stupid. 

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. coolguy1111

Something tells me intel may stay on top for some time...

AMD was dominating for so long at performance vs value, AMD also made the better first dual core, as the Pentium D was simply two P4s glued together, the X2 was a "true" dual core.

However, Intel did a full turn, and fixed ALOT of their issues, its gonna take AMD alot to stike back imo.

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. Snagal123

Something tells me intel may stay on top for some time...

AMD was dominating for so long at performance vs value, AMD also made the better first dual core, as the Pentium D was simply two P4s glued together, the X2 was a "true" dual core.

However, Intel did a full turn, and fixed ALOT of their issues, its gonna take AMD alot to stike back imo.

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. Snagal123

Something tells me intel may stay on top for some time...

AMD was dominating for so long at performance vs value, AMD also made the better first dual core, as the Pentium D was simply two P4s glued together, the X2 was a "true" dual core.

However, Intel did a full turn, and fixed ALOT of their issues, its gonna take AMD alot to stike back imo.

I think the opposite. It's always the same. AMD will bring out new chips, which will perform better as Intels. Intel was slacking for way to long now. 

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. trix5817

Is AMD even coming out with new CPU's to compete with the cheap C2D's like the E6300 and E6400?

I have a question for you guys. You all act like the Intel Core 2 Duo's are gods, however, the GHz on these things are low. Like 2.13 low. When Crysis needs over 3 GHz, unless you're able to overclock, is there no hope?
evilbarbarian

[QUOTE="Snagal123"]

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. F-Minus

Something tells me intel may stay on top for some time...

AMD was dominating for so long at performance vs value, AMD also made the better first dual core, as the Pentium D was simply two P4s glued together, the X2 was a "true" dual core.

However, Intel did a full turn, and fixed ALOT of their issues, its gonna take AMD alot to stike back imo.

I think the opposite. It's always the same. AMD will bring out new chips, which will perform better as Intels. Intel was slacking for way to long now.

Well the AMD FX74 4x4 i think its called has been out for a while, dual socket design, with 2 dual cores (Quad core), which is great as it potential is better than Intels QX, but the benchmarks are about even. It also costs ALOT more than a QX.

I feel we won't see anything major from AMD for a few years when they launch their CPU/GPU all in one solution.

Don't think iam not an AMD supporter, i went with AMD myself when i built my PC as back then they were dominating, but things have changed.

[QUOTE="F-Minus"][QUOTE="Snagal123"]

[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="coolguy1111"]Wow, why are you guys hating on him? He was asking a question. coolguy1111

Something tells me intel may stay on top for some time...

AMD was dominating for so long at performance vs value, AMD also made the better first dual core, as the Pentium D was simply two P4s glued together, the X2 was a "true" dual core.

However, Intel did a full turn, and fixed ALOT of their issues, its gonna take AMD alot to stike back imo.

I think the opposite. It's always the same. AMD will bring out new chips, which will perform better as Intels. Intel was slacking for way to long now.

That's true, altho I didn't read anything up on the upcoming AMD cheap, I think it will be possible for them to price them at a competitive place. Performance wise, I think they will overtake Intel and then Intel will overtake them etc. AMD have turned into a quality company in the last few years and their products are getting better and better, while Intel was holding to their past fame way to long, and that made them 2nd choice for many customers.

But yes, one will always come out with a better chip as it always was :), so I guess if you got time to wait, buy the best thing; money 2 performance ratio, it's a win/win situation for us customers. 

[QUOTE="-KinGz-"][QUOTE="Merovingin33"]why is this in system war. it's a questionMerovingin33

holy moley!

*head explodes*